I think provisional measures ("bandaid" solutions) should always come with an "until ____ is passed". Because yes, it shouldn't be how we have to do things. But while there isn't the political will to do/get the thing that would actually help the situation, something needs to be done to mitigate the harm that already exists. For example, I don't want to have to drink water from a dirty stream. That shouldn't be the standard. But if I find myself in a situation where it's that or to die of dehydration... restricting/denying the Band-Aid is essentially condemning them to the original harm

Fuck Trump. But also, I think with divisions the way they are, we have to be careful how we engage with our criticisms. And my problem with calling Trump "white trash" is layered. First, white trash has classically been used to denigrate lower class white folks. There's more to unpack there than I want to tackle, but to oversimplify, I feel like it is unnecessarily classist and brings in race at the same time. I'm sure there are plenty of people who you could call white trash that aren't racist, traitorous, scam artists. Also, I would consider Trump either not lower class, or a class traitor. And on top of that, it kind of seems like the least concerning thing about him. Him being cringe or gross or just generally repugnant is so 2016. We're now in the midst of several global catastrophes that this animated blob of greed and hatred will almost certainly pour rocketfuel on.

"It sets a shitty precedence.." is a gross minimalization to attach to effectively making the US be a dictatorship. And saying you're ok with a dictatorship because you happen to agree with the dictator is the kind of sentiment that cannot be left unchallenged/unexamined

Aristocrats!

So while I'm undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I'm not sure they're quite the same thing.

It's almost like it is in the best interests of one of the political parties to have a less informed populace and that party tends to limit or dismantle that educational infrastructure

Japan has Calpis Soda. Also delicious. (Although i think this is a yogurt based drink)

You've misapplied progressive language in such a way as to make me suspect this comment is an example of astroturfing. I almost hope that is the case, because the alternative is that you have allowed ignorance and implicit bias to lead you down a path of self justified racism/bigotry. As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception. Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we'd ban most religions. Even western ones.

I think Bev Keane was based off this woman

From everything I've read/heard about this, it does sound like a bit of a nothing burger. Overblown for political ends. But I think saying "coworker" is a bit intellectually dishonest. A big part of the allegation is that they were involved, and then she hires him. Concerns of abuse of power, misuse of funds, and conflicts of interest. The judge's ruling seems fair. To opponents, dismissing it in this way has the appearance of strawmanning. If you already have a strong argument, you only hurt your position long run

I don't experience it myself, so I couldn't say why it is the case, but I've known people who felt more freaked out or unsettled by things like death via necks snapping. If I were to try and guess, maybe it is easier to process direct impact causing lethal trauma than something that seems less... sonething? Idk. Maybe someone who has experienced this can explain.

I was thinking of the comic, but I guess it makes sense tocdo it that way in a movie meant for kids. A neck snapping might be a bit grim

I was referring to the original version in the comic. I haven't followed all the revisions and alternate universes to know the variations.

He used his web to grab her from above. I think her neck snaps from the whiplash?

What if... she made those comments knowing her son was going to be arrested, so she could say to her base that it was a set up/retaliation for what she had said? (Too conspiratorial? )

Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, consuming media and products supports the creators and the media apparatus around them. So by contributing views/clicks/whatever, you benefit those people. If those people use their money/influence in a negative way (against marginalized communities or antivax or anti worker etc) then you are directly helping those causes. I still listen to CDs of some artists that have been found to be awful, but I won't stream, or purchase merch, or event tickets. Everyone is going to draw their lines in different places, and we can't avoid all harm. But own it. Trying to say that what you're doing has no effect is intellectually dishonest

Edit: missed the 't in a can't

I think that way of thinking is why it is so difficult to deal with colonialism. We can commit atrocities, and as long at the people who committed them have died of old age, their descendants are free and clear. I don't really know where ixstand on this. But I can't not acknowledge that I have benefited from the misery of others. Whether it is slave wage labor, the crimes against indigenous peoples, patriarchy, or these proxy wars around the world. I think that pushing back against these injustices when seeing the harm it is causes makes obvious sense. But I think it also makes sense to do it selfishly. These people are making us culpable. Doesn't matter if it was someone we voted for who made these decisions, or even if it's someone we didn't vote for. These decisions are being made in our names and with our money. Idk man. Shit's complicated

And let's not fool ourselves. I'm sure that at least some, if not most, of these signatories aren't doing this out of some altruistic streak. Doesn't take morals to see that we're headed for class war. That or economic collapse. They are giving up some money/power/control so they don't risk losing it all.

Look at the US. They thought there were all these rules restricting a variety of things relating to governmental powers. Trump ignored a bunch of them, and it turns out there weren't laws in place to prevent or enforce repercussions. Just conventions that most politicians abided by. Now they've got that cluster fuck. Or more directly related, there were laws regulating the stock market. Those regulations have been eroded over time by those who would benefit. We let them, and now inequality is off the charts. Systems this big and intertwined need structure. You can argue about whether you want it centralized or decentralized, but it needs structure. Letting people decide what is right for themselves leads to what we have now. Those with money have the power, and they are free to keep taking from those at the bottom.

Because capitalism.
The less glib answer, though a bit of an over simplification, is that the current trend of neoliberalism discourages self limitation and collective collaboration. If regulation is not put in place and enforced by forces (government, social contract, etc) then people are incentivize to push and make use of any advantage available. Not doing it risks being displaced by those who do. Competition becomes toxic and self perpetuating